Fun trivia about piano rolls and copyright which us software nerds might find interesting:
"White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company, 209 U.S. 1 (1908), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that manufacturers of music rolls for player pianos did not have to pay royalties to the composers."
"The main issue was whether or not something had to be directly perceptible (meaning intelligible to an ordinary human being) for it to be a "copy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-Smith_Music_Publishing_C...
> "The main issue was whether or not something had to be directly perceptible (meaning intelligible to an ordinary human being) for it to be a "copy."
Why doesn't the same argument apply to a CD? or an MP3?
A CD and MP3s consist of recorded performances. A player piano roll contains the instructions for a performance, basically a transcription of sheet music, or a recording of someone performing a work. (Didn't read court findings for scope.)
Works (sheet music and lyrics) and recordings (committing it to media or storage) and performances can be distinctly copyrighted and separately licensed. But a CD track represents all 3 of those put together through “sweat of the brow”, usually by multiple parties.
Not strictly true. Player piano rolls were not made by mechanical transciption; a human actually played the music into a recording device (at least towards the end of the era). Because of this, we have a "recording" of Scott Joplin playing one of his rags. Dynamics are not preserved, but actual timing is.
> “This case was subsequently eclipsed by Congress's intervention in the form of an amendment to the Copyright Act of 1909, introducing a compulsory license for the manufacture and distribution of such "mechanical" embodiments of musical works.”